What Is the Difference in Right and Privilege as It Pertains to the US
Constitution?
The topic
of rights and specifically constitutional rights has reached most everyone in
the United States lately with the recent flag and national anthem protests by
prominent athletes. Often the question is not, “Does one have these rights,”
but it is, in fact, “Should one have these rights?” The topic of rights is
incredibly confusing though. There are many opinions on rights and on which
rights someone possesses. The problem with that though is that rights are not a
matter of opinion. Defining a right is where we must start, and if something is
not a right, then it likely is a privilege. The rights I am referring to here
pertain only to the US Constitution. I would like to flesh out the difference
between right and privilege as it pertains to the Constitution.
What Is a Right?
Let me be
clear: rights, true rights, are not given by any man or form of government.
Rights comes from God alone. Rights are the benefits that all human beings
possess simply for the fact that they are human. These do not belong to
animals, only to humans, and the list of rights we have is much simpler than
people make it. Our Declaration of Independence mentions the primary rights we
have. They are referred to as some of the unalienable rights that humans have
for the mere fact that we were all created equal. They are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. Note that we are not given the right to happiness but
only the pursuit of it. The other two are life and liberty. Government did not
give us these; God did. Even for someone who is not a Christian, these rights exist
for the mere fact that we are human beings and for no other reason.
Having said
that, in the United States, we have what are known are constitutional rights.
There is a Bill of Rights in our United States Constitution, and these rights
stem from these overarching God-given rights I have already mentioned (life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). I do not believe in theocracies, and
even though separation of church and state is nowhere in our Constitution, the
fifty state Constitutions, or the Declaration of Independence, the concept
exists far and wide and for good reason. As a Christian, I believe that faith
in the gospel of Jesus Christ is proposed, not imposed. Government cannot
legislate morality. Therefore, laws should only exist to protect people’s
rights and well-being, not to create a better society. Society is exactly what
the word means; it is a group or groups of social beings, in our case human
beings who live together in a common area. For us, this is the United States.
For society to be good then, it is ultimately up to the people in it, not the
government. There are things that are clearly wrong both morally and legally
such as murder and rape. These things infringe on others’ rights and
well-being. However, laws such as seatbelt laws and zoning laws in cities do
not help with this cause. They really exist to give more power to the
government whether it is federal, state, or local. The constitutional rights we
have exist because of a firm belief that all humans have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights then is designed to
help people experience the benefits of those rights.
What Is a Privilege?
Many people
confuse right and privilege. A privilege is a benefit that is not automatically
applied for being a human being. In other words, privileges may come in many
forms, but if they are not directly linked to our constitutional or God-given
rights without a stretch, we are not afforded them automatically. Marriage is
one of these. Marriage is not a right for anyone. During the debate on
September 26, Lester Holt asked Donald Trump if the American people have the
right to know what is on his tax returns. The clear answer is a resounding,
No!” This is nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, neither candidate had to
even appear for the debate. These are privileges. Many have used the argument
that churches having a tax exempt status is a privilege. This is certainly
true, but in the same way, it is also a privilege for schools, government
entities, and hospitals. Certainly we, as Americans, know what privilege is,
but we must never get so used to them that we begin to think they are rights. A
right and a privilege are two distinctly different things. At times, our courts
have to determine whether or not a particular action is constitutional or
unconstitutional. Their job is to interpret the laws. The problem here though
is that most of our laws are written not based on rights but on morality. In
other words, the law often does not reflect the simplicity of the Constitution.
This is the root of the problem often. Laws should only exist to protect
people’s rights and well-being. If it does not do this, it should not be a law.
We must
also consider business practice in this discussion. If an entity or corporation
is privately owned, it is the same as if it was someone’s property. The
government has no stake in it whatsoever. Therefore, it should be treated as
such. Government’s regulations on businesses typically do not help the economy,
nor do they allow Constitutional rights of the individual business owners to be
exercised. There are many cities that have non-smoking policies for businesses,
for example. Because many of these businesses are privately owned, however,
this is the exact same as telling someone they may not smoke in their own home.
If an organization is a government entity, this might be different, but even
then, of all places to be able to exercise your Constitutional rights, it
should be government organizations. This is one reason I firmly disagree with
free speech areas on college campuses. The entire campus should be free speech.
In fact, the only places that perhaps should not be free speech are private
properties. We seem to have it backwards though. Government organizations are
funded by tax dollars, yet these are often the places where Constitutional
rights may be exercised the least.
We also
have to be careful not to see privilege and right as the same thing. Under God,
our rights are carefully spelled out for us in the Constitution. These rights
should never be taken from us. While certain privileges (like marriage) are
derived from these rights, however, we must be careful not to think they are
one in the same. Our rights are quite simple actually. As far as privileges, I
respect those who fight for them and who desire to see more of them, but do not
think of them as rights. Even if our government says these are rights, by
definition, they are not.
Is Anyone Ever Disqualified from Any Rights?
We could
bypass a lot of issues to get to the main question here. Do felons have rights?
There might be many others to ask that question about too, but we usually want
to know if convicted felons have rights. In short, the answer is yes. Again
rights exist simply for the fact that you are a human being. It is true that
some felonies at least temporarily (if not permanently) exclude people from
rights. The question should not be if
someone is disqualified from some rights but should they be. If the concept is that all humans, endowed by their
creator, have certain unalienable rights and the Constitution clarifies what
these rights are, then should not all humans possess these rights including
felons? The would be the logical stance. The problem is that we devalue humans
based on their mistakes. Certainly someone should face the consequences for
mistakes, but once the price is paid, should that person not be allowed to be
an active and normal part of society, meaning that his or her rights are
restored? I suggest that everyone should have the same rights afforded them,
including felons who have paid their debt to society.
What about
those who might be different? Should homosexuals have the right to marry their
partner? Again keep in mind the difference between right and privilege.
Marriage is not a right. It is not in the Constitution as part of the Bill of
Rights. We must stop confusing right and privilege. However, this is not to say
that we should legislate based on morality. As a Christian, I believe
homosexuality is clearly a sin. Should it be illegal though? In my opinion, it
should not; nor should homosexual marriage. This is not something that
infringes on someone else’s rights and well-being. Since I believe marriage is
a union between a man and woman only, even if the government issues marriage licenses
to gay couples, it is not marriage in my opinion. They may hold a certificate
and may even call it marriage, but it is not. Who am I to stop it though? We
cannot stop the current of society. We can take a stand as Christians, but
ultimately it will do whatever it wants to do, and we have to live in this
society and love all people.
Homosexual people should absolutely
have the same rights as anyone else, but let’s not confuse marriage as a right;
it is a privilege. The point here is that these are some things that might
disqualify people from exercising certain rights for a period of time, but it
should not be permanently except in the case that they permanently took someone
else’s rights, as is in the case of murder. All humans, mistakes or not, are eligible
and worthy to exercise their God-given and Constitutional rights.
Should Any Constitutional Rights Be Applied Differently than Others?
A right is
a right is a right. Therefore, we should not treat any constitutional rights
differently than the others. In other words, if we indeed possess these rights,
they should be applied equally. There cannot be stipulations on rights, or we
really do not have them in practice. One right that comes to mind is the 2nd
Amendment. The 2nd Amendment affords each individual the right to
keep and to bear arms. This does not mean that everyone has the right to buy or
sell arms or even that the government cannot charge a $6,000 tax for the
purchase of firearms. It simply means what it says, that people may keep and
bear arms, and this is a good thing because it protects citizens from the
chance of a corrupt government. Why is it often applied differently though? If
everyone has this right, why are there so many stipulations. We don’t have
stipulations on the 1st Amendment, or we shouldn’t at least. Most
people would argue either that the 2nd Amendment was not written
with the future in mind with all of our advancements in guns and weaponry. Some
might also argue that the 2nd Amendment deals directly with people’s
lives. The truth is that if someone wants a gun to kill another human being,
they will get one with or without laws against it. I believe we either need to
amend the Constitution, which we certainly can do under the right circumstances
or there should be no stipulations on any amendment. They should all be applied
equally; otherwise, the concept of rights is useless to us. We either have them
or we don’t.
Should We Fight for Rights or Privileges or Both?
Since there
is an apparent difference between right and privilege, which are we to fight
for, or should we fight for both? What is our responsibility as Americans? I
think the answer for one is obvious. We should all fight for rights. There is a
sense in which we all possess the same rights as human beings. The problem,
however, lies in the fact that these rights are sometimes squelched and
diminished by corrupt government, which we cannot deny exists even in the
United States. Because all humans are equal and these rights given by God and
explained in the Constitution are unalienable, we must fight for the free exercising
of all human rights.
Should we then fight also for
privilege? The short answer is yes. However, we must be careful and wise on
where to plant our flag. One person simply cannot take legislative action
against the will of the people to get what he or she wants. We must work
together. There are certain privileges that are more important than others
depending on the individual, and many of these privileges hit very close to
home. People are passionate about them. We should not diminish their passion
either simply because we might disagree. In fact, we should encourage all
people to exercise their rights and fight for their privileges. If a government
or people is hindering rights from freely being exercises, certainly everyone
should fight against that entity. Privilege is different though in that we have
room for disagreement. There is no such thing as a perfect society, and we must
be OK with that. We work toward a more perfect union, but we will never achieve
it. Until then though, we fight tightly to uphold rights and fight loosely for
the privileges we are passionate about while still respecting others we
disagree with. If we did this, there would certainly be less division among us.
However, this is not the direction of the tide in our society. The trend is to
think that we are right and everyone else is wrong. If it is not a right issue,
leave it alone and let people fight for what they are passionate about. Right
are crucial in our society. Privilege is essential to a thriving society, but
let us not confuse the two. They are not one in the same.
